Putin seems to be incrementally taking over Georgia

[Bulletpoint]

If North Korea's sole aim is regime survival, well, they survived just fine for 60+ years already without nuclear weapons. Why the race for the nuclear bomb now?

Their conventional threat to South Korea (and their Chinese friends backing them up) seem to have worked great so far.

What has changed in that equation? Is it because they fear that recent advances in US missile shield technology might soon make their local deterrent obsolete?

[Wicky]

The current mutual defense treaty (Article 2) between China & NK that was signed in 1962 is up for renewal in 2021.  So NK having strategic weapons in the bank would give them greater independence if they were cut loose.

[John Kettler]

Since we're talking about North Korea, here is an excellent video interview of Collin Powell's former chief of staff. Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is one of the straightest shooters I've ever seen. In this interview he scathingly dissects the Pentagon's latest scary study and sets forth what seems to me to be a reasonable, doable and credible approach to dealing with North Korea. Speaking of which, there are articles online which look at North Korea's supposed ability to "destroy Seoul" with rockets and artillery fire. The conclusion? Such fires would cause damage, but they are in no way capable of destroying the city, a claim born of alarmism, military ignorance or both. Also, as the good colonel, now a professor at William and Mary observed, if NK ever throws a ballistic missile at Japan or the US, NK will cease to exist, which would be bad for regime stability!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

The challenge is that for every interesting POV you have another one that exposes it as biased:  https://www.newsbud.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

It is true that ordinary people in the US are frightened by the concept of decline, by losing control of their own country, by seeing a decline in living standards for themselves and especially their kids.  Desperate people do desperate things.  That's why Trump got elected.  In retrospect (or course) it all seems so obvious.

Re the interesting interview with Col Wilkerson about how we need to be more accommodating, I kept picturing him saying similar things in the 1930's about Hitler.

But am impressed by his bio:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Best sound bite (paraphrased and edited):  "The Chinese are not looking for war.  The Chinese plan to beat the US economically. They only have a military to protect their economic interests."

Well yeah...   Economics is a form of war and using military to protect those "economic interests" is what ALL countries aim to do - or they are destroyed.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This thread seems to be devoting a lot of attention to politics and not very much to CM:BS.....Which is odd as it's in the CM:BS area of the forum, some sort of oversight on OP's behalf perhaps? 

[Erwin]

I also wish there were tons of healthy threads about CM2 tactics and how to become a better player.  But, if you take away the political and also the grog tech stuff like how many rivets are on a <date> <version> <military equipment> <whatever> there is very little else going on in these forums (regrettably).

Ref to Ukraine type situation:  I mentioned some time ago that another potential flashpoint is India and China via the Himalayas.  Today in WSJ I read that there is already conflict in lovely but tiny Bhutan (piggy in the middle) where Chinese moved in people to construct a road (helpful for invasions) through part of Bhutan.  Bhutan sent troops to stop construction and called India (a nuclear-equipped country) for help.  The Chinese sent troops to the region, and there they all sit staring at each other.  Bhutan has called China's actions "a direct violation" etc.  But, (presumably thanks to our corporations' investments in China) we don't hear as much about this potentially much more serious confrontation between 2 nuke countries as we do about Russia...

Deja vu...?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I've been following that little squabble too.....Viable hypothetical scenario there but we don't really have the tools for it. 

[Erwin]

We do have mods for Pakistani troops - which would be similar to Indians.  (Not sure what weapons they have.)

BTW: I wonder if the Brit uniforms and specifically the Brit helmets in CMSF could be modded to look like either Chinese (or Russians in Syria)?  They seem similar.  Weapons of course would again be the problem. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Erwin

[Wicky]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

I also wish there were tons of healthy threads about CM2 tactics and how to become a better player.  But, if you take away the political and also the grog tech stuff like how many rivets are on a <date> <version> <military equipment> <whatever> there is very little else going on in these forums (regrettably).

Ref to Ukraine type situation:  I mentioned some time ago that another potential flashpoint is India and China via the Himalayas.  Today in WSJ I read that there is already conflict in lovely but tiny Bhutan (piggy in the middle) where Chinese moved in people to construct a road (helpful for invasions) through part of Bhutan.  Bhutan sent troops to stop construction and called India (a nuclear-equipped country) for help.  The Chinese sent troops to the region, and there they all sit staring at each other.  Bhutan has called China's actions "a direct violation" etc.  But, (presumably thanks to our corporations' investments in China) we don't hear as much about this potentially much more serious confrontation between 2 nuke countries as we do about Russia...

Deja vu...?

Also next door to Bhutan in Northern India is Arunachal Pradesh which China claims and was the route of a major incursion in the 60s is a potential flashpoint. Bought to my attention in a friend's book Land of the Dawn-lit Mountains: A Journey across Arunachal Pradesh - India's Forgotten Frontier

[Erwin]

The issue is at the "3 corners" area which represents a very tenuous line of supply from India to its NE region.  China is trying to threaten that link and isolate India's NE province. 

In addition, China has built the world's largest gold statue of Buddha in Bhutan as a "gift".  (I bin there and it is very impressive.)  Of course that means that tens of thousands (millions?) of Chinese will flood in to see it.  Of course that requires good roads.  The sort of roads that armored divisions need.  And pretty soon little Bhutan will be overrun and lose independence.  One can see it coming...

Combined with China's outrageous attempt in the South China Sea to control world sea trade and grab potential offshore oil from Vietnam, the Philippines and several other countries, and their using client state NK to embarrass and humiliate the US, this makes Russia's adventurism look trivial.

[Aragorn2002]

I was born in the early sixties and grew up during the Cold War. Things seemed pretty simple then. Most of us realized the danger came from the East. Nowadays nothing seems certain or clear anymore. A weak and unstable Europe, flooded with immigrants and once again threatened from the East, a divided and confused USA with a president that seems to come right out of a cartoon, Brexit, terrorism, hackers, computers taking over our jobs, Russia and China on the warpath and so on and so on. Oh, and let's not forget about the climate change.  Very depressing. Perhaps I'm getting old, but I do miss the Cold War.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Aragorn2002

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's kind of like the Cold War, but without grown-ups in charge. 

[IMHO]

On 8/2/2017 at 7:25 PM, Bulletpoint said:

If North Korea's sole aim is regime survival, well, they survived just fine for 60+ years already without nuclear weapons. Why the race for the nuclear bomb now?

Their conventional threat to South Korea (and their Chinese friends backing them up) seem to have worked great so far.

What has changed in that equation? Is it because they fear that recent advances in US missile shield technology might soon make their local deterrent obsolete?

@Bulletpoint, may be because twenty years ago states were much less inclined to overthrow rulers by sheer force for no rational reasons. Then came Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia etc. So Kim can no longer be sure that a mass-media induced popular sentiment won't dictate someone powerful enough to topple Kim's regime. Iraqi invasion was a total catastrophe - so much death and destruction to local populace, many deaths to invading force and the place is turned into a hot bed of radical Islam as the result. Seems like failure at a sheer scale to learn lessons from. Yet the same happens to Lybia with the very same disaster in the end. To Kim it's a signal that Western decision making is irrational even when the costs are high. The logical step for him is to make the costs of irrationality prohibitively high. So he does...

Correction to your post: NK is already in possession of nukes - whether they're capable of fitting them to ballistic missiles is another question. The brawl is about private American fears NK will be able to reach CONUS sometime in future. For China, Japan, SK or Russia there's no change in status quo - they're all reachable by NK even now.

Edited August 4, 2017 by IMHO

[Bulletpoint]

22 minutes ago, IMHO said:

may be because twenty years ago states were much less inclined to overthrow rulers by sheer force for no rational reasons. Then came Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia etc. So Kim can no longer be sure that a mass-media induced popular sentiment won't dictate someone powerful enough to topple Kim's regime. Iraqi invasion was a total catastrophe - so much death and destruction to local populace, many deaths to invading force and the place is turned into a hot bed of radical Islam as the result. Seems like failure at a sheer scale to learn lessons from. Yet the same happens to Lybia with the very same disaster in the end. To Kim it's a signal that Western decision making is irrational even when the costs are high. The logical step for him is to make the costs of irrationality prohibitively high. So he does...

I think you might be right, but the irony is that going for nuclear weapons might be the thing that finally convinces the Americans that they need to overthrow the regime.

However, the US seems quite powerless in this matter, because they already played their military hand in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that didn't end too well. There's not the same public trust in Western leaders when they announce there's a grave threat that needs to be stopped immediately. 

I think everthing hinges on whether China sees a nuclear armed North Korea as a factor for stability or instability. Maybe they are not quite sure themselves.

If they some day decide the North Korean regime does not serve their interests, Kim Jong-Un could suddenly fall very ill. To 'protect the North Korean people' from anarchy, China would then occupy their territory, with the tacit approval of the USA (despite some symbolic complaints and objections in the UN). The occupation would continue indefinitely and little by little, North Korea would become part of China. Tensions would be defused.

 

22 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Correction to your post: NK is already in possession of nukes - whether they're capable of fitting them to ballistic missiles is another question.

Yes, I know. Actually, I think they are not yet able to produce nuclear bombs as such, just "nuclear devices". When I wrote they were going for nuclear weapons, I meant the whole package, including delivery systems.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Bulletpoint

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It's kind of like the Cold War, but without grown-ups in charge. 

It sure seems like that yes. It's getting harder and harder to understand what is going on.

[IMHO]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think everthing hinges on whether China sees a nuclear armed North Korea as a factor for stability or instability. Maybe they are not quite sure themselves. If they some day decide the North Korean regime does not serve their interests, Kim Jong-Un could suddenly fall very ill.

There's no question China sees it as a factor of instability. E.g. China significantly limited the amount of fuel it provides to NK at subsidized prices ("price of friendship") at end of June - beginning of July. Right in the midst of agricultural season so it hurts NK A LOT. Foodstuff in NK is produced solely by private sector so it spells significant food price hikes this fall. But Kim is no puppet of Beijing - he plays his own cards. And right now he plays at least as much against Chinese interests as American's. It's just Chinese see no way out of the stalemate. Kim's not gonna drop ICBM idea even if hundreds thousands of his compatriots perished. On the contrary it'll make him resort to the tactics of open armed intimidation pushing other countries to provide calories for his populace. With Trump at the helm and a macho attitude instilled by his campaign in American establishment and public in general it's way treacherous position then Kim's getting the missile.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think you might be right, but the irony is that going for nuclear weapons might be the thing that finally convince the Americans that they need to overthrow the regime.

IMO in the end it will not go beyond media frenzy. China, Japan, SK would suffer enormously should action begins so they'll go to greatest lengths to prevent such an outcome. For the US it's a question of fear and national pride, for them it's quite real danger of catastrophe of immense proportions. US fighting such a united front is beyond the line of acceptable even for current administration (at least I hope so ). But at the very moment it suits many interests in the US - attention is distracted from Mueller probe, establishment plays into the public sentiment of America-Is-Great-Again. And after all applying some pressure on Kim's administration through media-wars does not hurt either.

E.g. the US is quite capable of raising the stakes for Kim as one last step before the real action by significantly increasing US military presence near NK. Strictly speaking it still keeps all options clear for the US and provides more limelight for the TV president. Say more carrier strike groups, marine expeditionary brigade, repositioning more air power to SK and Japan. Yet Donald instead goes for rhetoric that Russia and China should "pay for it" (hello, Mexico). My uneducated guess there was some concerted effort at explaining to the President that too much brinkmanship is a wrong move in this game.

Edited August 4, 2017 by IMHO

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, IMHO said:

But Kim is no puppet of Beijing - he plays his own cards.

Puppet or not - as far as I understand it, North Korea has only been able to persist for so many years of tragicomic Stalinist style dictatorship because they are propped up by China, which always saw the regime as a useful pawn. I doubt North Korea could have made it this far with their nuclear ambitions without a high degree of tacit approval from China. The NK nuclear and missile projects have been seen coming for decades.

While the US appears to have just been hoping their problems would solve themselves, I doubt China hasn't been considering what kind of end games they would prefer for North Korea. I think they would seriously consider trading their pawn for US concessions, on the Korean Peninsula, in the Pacific, or both.

But of course, this idea hinges on China actually having decisive influence over North Korea.

[IMHO]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

...North Korea has only been able to persist for so many years of tragicomic Stalinist style dictatorship

1. It's a Stalinist dictatorship but it's not a Stalinist economy for so many years by now. Again, more than 50% of their GDP is created by private sector. If you count in military production - significant and surely state-owned, - and services provided by NK government - education, medicine, state's share of residential construction, you'll definitely end up with an economy that's more capitalist than China's. Yes, they still use some antiquated Stalinist language when talking to their people or to the outside world but that's just their peculiar wording. If you take some of China's must-know-language it must look more dangerous to you than NK as China's still officially fights to establish the rule of working people all over the world  But somehow you differentiate between Chinese little used yet official mantras and their real goals. Why not do it in case of NK?
2. What will happen to NK over the next say twenty years? It'll be a full-fledged oligarchy where Kim's dynasty might be the strongest yet far from the only player on the chessboard of decision making. Even now he's evidently far from being alone - his cruel acts of shooting old guards are not to show his craziness to the outside world but rather to show who's the boss to his own establishment (obviously many doubted ). What will this oligarchy try to do? It will try to protect their capitals, get rich trading with outside world, travel abroad in style, send their kids to study in Switzerland - i.e. it'll inevitably try to appear more or less rational to the outside world. It's just Chinese leadership has the liberty of waiting those 20 years and American establishment seems to have developed an urge of solving world problems in matter of days.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

they are propped up by China, which always saw the regime as a useful pawn. I doubt North Korea could have made it this far with their nuclear ambitions without a high degree of tacit approval from China. The NK nuclear and missile projects have been seen coming for decades.

1. What's wrong with China benefitting from a useful pawn especially when the US is trying to steal one from them?
2. Chinese establishment hates the guts of Young Kim.
3. China has always seen NK's nuclear program as a significant detriment to its interests and AFAIK China's never provided critical support for NK's missile programs in anything beyond tactical (and that was many decades ago). Or otherwise NK would have ICBM by now  It's just China differentiates between propping a state and propping weapons programs while US sees a black-and-white picture. May be not least because serious trouble in NK will be Chinese, Japanese, SK's problem - not US's.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

While the US appears to have just been hoping their problems would solve themselves, I doubt China hasn't been considering what kind of end games they would prefer for North Korea. I think they would seriously consider trading their pawn for US concessions, on the Korean Peninsula, in the Pacific, or both.

1. Obviously the best result they want is a predictable client state of China buying as much Chinese goods as possible (for that it has to be a rather prosperous economy).
2. Again there's no way Kim will drop ICBM program without an all-out-war. What concessions can the US provide China with that will outweigh such a disaster at their doorstep? Who will feed, provide shelter to millions of North Koreans for decades to come? US? It even tries to bully Mexico into footing the bill for US-built wall.
3. On top of that Chinese rightfully believe whatever they want in SEA without sparking a major regional war they will get even over US objections. Again even now the US alone is weaker than China in SEA in terms of military power. Imagine what it will look like in 20 years when US will be 50% smaller than China economically.

Edited August 4, 2017 by IMHO

[DreDay]

Great points gentlemen! I happen to believe that China and Russia can covertly convince DPRK to diescalate their nuclear ramp-up. Unfortunately I am not an expert on PRC; but Russia might have done us that favor in spirit of normalizing our mutual relations (in fact they had originally joined us in criticizing Kim's first missle trials). Unfortunately though, our POTUS (whose foreign policy goals I actually happen to like); could not keep from acting like a used car salesman with his "make concessions first, and then we might talk"...so here we are 

[DreDay]

8 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. What's wrong with China benefitting from a useful pawn especially when the US is trying to steal one from them?
2. Chinese establishment hates the guts of Young Kim.
3. China has always seen NK's nuclear program as a significant detriment to its interests and AFAIK China's never provided critical support for NK's missile programs in anything beyond tactical (and that was many decades ago). Or otherwise NK would have ICBM by now  It's just China differentiates between propping a state and propping weapons programs while US sees a black-and-white picture. May be not least because serious trouble in NK will be Chinese, Japanese, SK's problem - not US's.

That is precisely right, PRC absolutely does  not need an all out war, resulting in a major refugee and humanitarian crisis at their doorsteps. Even more so, as it will bring South Korea (read US) right next to their borders.

Russia, on the other hand, can potentially benefit in such scenario; as their border is much easier to control and they can actually use an influx of Korean refugees (who are highly valued by Russian employers).

[DreDay]

5 minutes ago, DreDay said:

 Please discard

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by DreDay

[IMHO]

11 minutes ago, DreDay said:

Great points gentlemen! I happen to believe that China and Russia can covertly convince DPRK to diescalate their nuclear ramp-up. Unfortunately I am not an expert on PRC; but Russia might have done us that favor in spirit of normalizing our mutual relations (in fact they had originally joined us in criticizing Kim's first missle trials). Unfortunately though, our POTUS (whose foreign policy goals I actually happen to like); could not keep from acting like a used car salesman with his "make concessions first, and then we might talk"...so here we are 

1. Thanks a lot.
2. Just as a background Russia has limited influence over NK - there's no trade to speak of. There are some financial flows from Russia to NK but they're not so significant to be a critical leverage. Off the cuff estimation would be single digits of their hard currency inflows. The only influence Russia has in its arsenal is the fact that it still speaks to NK and there are precious few who do that nowadays

[DreDay]

11 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. Thanks a lot.
2. Just as a background Russia has limited influence over NK - there's no trade to speak of. There are some financial flows from Russia to NK but they're not so significant to be a critical leverage. Off the cuff estimation would be single digits of their hard currency inflows. The only influence Russia has in its arsenal is the fact that it still speaks to NK and there are precious few who do that nowadays

That is correct, however let's also not forget that Russia has huge influence over NK senior officer staff (most of whom are Russian-trained, and some might be Russian-financed). Those are not the type of cadre whose opinion Kim can afford to ignore.

Edited August 4, 2017 by DreDay

[IMHO]

3 minutes ago, DreDay said:

Russia, on the other hand, can potentially benefit in such scenario; as their border is much easier to control and they can actually use an influx of Korean refugees (who are highly valued by Russian employers).

1. Russia can get as many of NK's gastarbeiters as it wants even now. Actually Russia's considered the most wanted destination inside NK. NK workers are kept in a kind of "labor camps with comforts" in other countries whereas in Russia they live just like other menial workers from abroad. As close to normal life as possible for a cheap unskilled labour. Entertainment, food, shops, ability to do extra work beyond their main employer if they wish to do so etc.
2. Overall influence on Russian economy of any serious trouble in NK will be highly negative. China's a significant buyer of Russia's raw materials so if Chinese economy's in trouble so does Russian's. And China will be significantly affected.

[DreDay]

8 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. Russia can get as many of NK's gastarbeiters as it wants even now. Actually Russia's considered the most wanted destination inside NK. NK workers are kept in a kind of "labor camps with comforts" in other countries whereas in Russia they live just like other menial workers from abroad. As close to normal life as possible for a cheap unskilled labour. Entertainment, food, shops, ability to do extra work beyond their main employer if they wish to do so etc.
2. Overall influence on Russian economy of any serious trouble in NK will be highly negative. China's a significant buyer of Russia's raw materials so if Chinese economy's in trouble so does Russian's. And China will be significantly affected.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the current generation of NK gastarbaiters are just low-skilled seasonal workers; aren't they? I am talking about a senerio where whole middle class families migrate there (sort of like many Armenians did in the late 80s).  I think that you know as well as I do, how highly Russians value educated Koreans for their work-ethic, discipline, and accountability.